asuswrt_arp_neighbors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists entries but does not disclose if it might be slow, require authentication, or if entries are cached. However, the behavior is simple and self-evident.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. It fully describes the tool's purpose without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does, and there are no missing details that would hinder correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List ARP/IP neighbor entries known by the router' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('ARP/IP neighbor entries'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like asuswrt_clients or asuswrt_route_table.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (to see neighbor entries) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Since the tool is parameterless and straightforward, the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not proactive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.